| SitePoint Sponsor |
if "header" means <head>...</head>, search engines ignore this because of spamming
and there is no such thing as <foot>...</foot>
which leaves <body>...</body>, i.e. back to square one
you seem to be suggesting that word count equates to relevance
it most certainly does not -- maybe for some search engines, but not the ones that are keenly interested in bringing back results that actually mean something
the main problem is that it's hard for a computer to figure out what something means
No I mean for the search engine to take an image of the page, then dynamically split the page up in to different sections. Then within each section analyise the words, frequency and more importantly word order and structure.Originally Posted by r937
The head and foot could be called bottom and top, I only choose them names out of my head. Top and Bottom would also be calculated dynamically depending on the physical size of the page returned. Larger pages would be deamed to have more relevant info, after all they contain a higher % of words, but only if the body score was good.
Exactly - the more 'spam' you have in your header the lower your total score, as the body / head = Final total scoreif "header" means <head>...</head>, search engines ignore this because of spamming
As I says its only a concept I thought of ... any other ideas around?
I agree. Google has been on my bad side for many years. Even with sites that topped out at PR's of 7/10, Google failed to list any of my sites within the top 100. This had me suspicious as to what was really going on at Google in the background. Then I read this:
http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/001214.html
Apparently, it's all a lie anyway. I hope MSN topples Google!
If Google doesn't "work":
Why are there over 200 million searches per day conducted at Google?
Why is their market valuation in the stratosphere?
Why do I see AdSense ads on almost every small web site?
Why are they the ones coming out with the BEST beta stuff the fastest?
The Internet is a delivery medium for information - but MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY it is a medium to MAKE MONEY. That's what determines the success of a publicly held company.
Hmmmmmm...I wish my business didn't "work" too!
Were not on about how well google is doing as a business, but rather how well it performs as a search engine.
Google has long been percieved as being the best, but thats because the alternatives were rubbish. Now every one has taken notice of google and upped the anti.
Other companies are challenging google now, and just as altavista used to be the best search engine it wont be long till others come about that threaten google ... anyone hear micro$oft knocking on the door?
Hey, google got me here, *I'm happy*
This logic is totally flawed.
Site A:
Number of times word "Widget" appears in "head" : 10.
Number of times word "Widget" appears in "body" : 20.
Final Score (body / head ) = 2.
Site B:
Number of times word "Widget" appears in "head" : 20.
Number of times word "Widget" appears in "body" : 10.
Final Score (body/head) = .5
Uhhh....
How bout this example
Is that more meaningful than...HTML Code:<body> <h1>FOOTBALL</h1> <h2>FOOTBALL</h2> <h3>FOOTBALL</h3> <h4>FOOTBALL</h4> <p>FOOTBALL</p> <p>FOOTBALL</p> <p>FOOTBALL</p> <p>FOOTBALL</p> <p>FOOTBALL</p> <p>FOOTBALL</p> </body>
HTML Code:<body> <h1>Football</h1> <p>Football is a sport played with a small pigskin ball. Unless of course you're not from the United States in which case the game is totally different and played with a round ball that is kicked around rather than thrown around. </p> </body>
Google does work fine for me, thanks.
Well, you're alright then. A little selfish perhaps but alright.
BTW my selfishness includes my clients as well.
Like I said it was only an idea but if you'd care to read the whole post you see I also said this ...
Also, your assuming that in your football example the h1 are the header, my idea was to split the page up in to sections (top, bottom, body), not based on the actual code but rather the content with in the page, and the physical page size. This would mean a page could be analysed better in order to return better results, where the key search word/phrase would be spread out over the page, instead of appearing in just on area.No I mean for the search engine to take an image of the page, then dynamically split the page up in to different sections. Then within each section analyise the words, frequency and more importantly word order and structure.
We're not search engine designers but the point is: other search engines are catching up. Google focused too much on other markets, and if you've used other search engines lately, you might have noticed that Google might not necesarilly be the best anymore, when it comes to searching. Of course it's sufficient, it returns results for me toobut that includes alot of spam
I agree about the others catching up.... I am seeing more and more spam on google these days...... This last update they did was just absurd and they are getting worse. Their "do no evil" mantra has changed to "do no evil unless it affects the bottom line".
because i am still quite naive about search engine spamming (all i ever learned was not to use any techniques over and above honest content), could you please give a couple of examples of this "more and more spam" phenomenon, because i'd really like to learn about these new spamming techniques that google is allegedly allowing because of bottom line interests
I don't want Google finding me. :-O
Amen...
Oh yes I would. This is about Google as a search engine. It is not performing search as well as it once did. Yahoo is certainly better and more accurate.I bet you that if you had a top 10 site you wouldnt be complaining about Googles accuracy.
If you are using Google right now you are missing a lot.
Google IMO was the best SE. I hope it becomes so again. They had 44% market share in Dec 2004. If it continues in its current state let's see what that figure is in Dec 2005.
malcolm, would you mind explaining what "better and more accurate" means?
what exactly are you measuring with those rather subjective terms?
oh, and market share is the way to measure the goodness and accuracy of a product or service?
please, give me a break
by that yardstick, internet explorer is the best browser in the universe
quatsch, i tell you, total quatsch
is it me or is this discussion going round in circles again, just like it did a page ago?
Try some searches yourself. There are examples in this thread. A quick favourite of mine is UK events
Try that term on Google, look at the #1 result, then do the same in Yahoo. Tell me which is the "better, more relevant and more useful result".
My point about Google's market share is that it will reduce as people discover better results with MSN, Yahoo and others. Users will migrate if Google doesn't do something to improve.
Look at the migration from IE to FireFox. You'll find a growing number of users on FireFox via your stats.
i dont mean to sound sarcastic, but yes, i know, you've mentioned that several times already.
my point. forget google, if you dont like it, dont use it.
I realise that google doesnt dish out as relevent results as it used to, and im speaking from a purely search point of view here, (im happy, most of my sites are all in the top 10, not on competitive terms mind you) but im not wasting any time complaining about their irrelevent search results, im moving on and spend my day doing what i normally do. Optimising my sites, creating content and also building more sites. Its what i do.
Its a far better way to spend my day, than complaining on sitepoint about something that is completely out of my hands.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Adobe
1. Adobe Reader - Download
2. Adobe Reader - ダウンロード
3. Adobe Reader – Herunterladen
4. Adobe: Accessibility
5. Adobe Studio Exchange
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Ado...gle=1&ei=UTF-8
1. Adobe Systems Incorporated
2. Adobe Acrobat
3. Adobe Reader Download
4. Adobe Photoshop
5. Adobe Illustrator
This speaks for itself. Looks like Google has to catch up when it comes to search result relevancy.
Google does seem to have its problems, but I agree with those that said - it's all pretty subjective. And when it comes to the more competitive niches, there may be so many good sites out there that some people are bound to be rightfully unhappy with the results.
Bottom line is we all try to optimize for Google, because it is the most popular SE out there. That means being top position is like hitting the jackpot. It all comes down to money...
My Web Publishing Blog: B6S.net - I dofollow but don't spam!
Follow me on Twitter
My favorite content writer:
Steve Snedeker
I agree a lot with OP and I find that I am having to search a few times to get the results I need. I see usually only 1 or 2 good relevant links when I do a google search now...compared to 6-10 a couple years ago.
I think they should move all sellers to froogle. Information should be at the core of the google results and it is less and less so. I was using yahoo years ago..then hotbot for a while..then i found google. It might be time to search for a search engine.
I also want to note that google attracted me because I was tired of the huge page loads that old search engines had. Google was clean...only results. They got big over that one feature..no features. We all know that a lot of what the OP said has at least SOME truth to it.
We all complain about google. We also all complain about Microsoft but I bet many are on either IE or a windows system. Maybe when you get a lot of people complaining that's when you know you hit the big time.
mamma.com has been on my list of engines for a while..I might start using them on a regular basis...does anyone know who provides the results for them?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks